There follows a review of Full Fact’s ‘fact check’ of recent statements by MP Andrew Bridgen. It has been put together by expert group HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) and first appeared on its website. Sign up for the latest updates from HART here.
HART has previously noted deficiencies in mainstream ‘fact-checks’ — after all, who watches the watchmen? And, perhaps more pertinently, who pays the watchmen?
The response from the somewhat appalled mainstream media to Andrew Bridgen’s frank outspokenness on harms from medical interventions tells its own story, and has been very well covered elsewhere, e.g. here, here and here.
HART is pleased to see this discussion progress, and provides here a critical appraisal of an attempt to ‘fact-check’ some of Andrew Bridgen’s recent statements. We have done our own analysis of two ‘fact-check’ documents by Full Fact, whose team are to be thanked for highlighting a minor correction that should be made to one of the MP’s statements, as well as having the effect of emphasising the pertinent nature of his statements, questions and challenges.
In summary, HART finds Andrew Bridgen’s statements to be true and fair, subject to one technical correction.
AB: Andrew Bridgen; FF: Full Fact.
Full Fact Document 1: “Andrew Bridgen’s vaccine debate claims fact checked“
Serious adverse effects reported by the public after vaccination are thought to represent only 10% of the true rate of serious adverse events.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has specifically warned this estimate shouldn’t be used for COVID-19 vaccines, given there was high public awareness of its Yellow Card scheme.